THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN ANAGRAM STOCK BROKING LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

2,000 may be charged to depreciation in each year over the next five years. There are several methods used to calculate depreciation. The full value of costs that are not capital expenditures must be deducted in the year they are incurred. 46 ITA Nos. 413,445,268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

2,000 may be charged to depreciation in each year over the next five years. There are several methods used to calculate depreciation. The full value of costs that are not capital expenditures must be deducted in the year they are incurred. 46 ITA Nos. 413,445,268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016

M/S. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD. ( AMALGAMATING COMPANY EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

2,000 may be charged to depreciation in each year over the next five years. There are several methods used to calculate depreciation. The full value of costs that are not capital expenditures must be deducted in the year they are incurred. 46 ITA Nos. 413,445,268&318/Ahd/2016 and 446/Ahd/2016

THE SANKHEDA JETPUR PAVI TALUKA GINNING PRESSING COTTON SALE CO.OP SOCIETY LTD,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS deductions by these companies, which were subsequently claimed by the assessee. This deduction was deemed disallowable, resulting in an underassessment of income amounting to Rs. 24,51,022/-. Thus, the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) was determined to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. In the 263 notice, it was mentioned that

VISHNUBHAI MAFATBHAI DESAI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2849/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15)

TDS On Transfer Of (418470) (418470) Immovable Property Tax Refundable (41640) (1761) c. In view of the above arguments, the appellant therefore request your honor that the appeal may please be allowed on the merits of the case". 2.3. I have given careful consideration to the appellant's written submission and also carefully gone through the assessment order. On perusal

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. M/S. GUJARAT INFRA PIPES PVT. LTD.,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) relating to the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were ITA Nos. 813 & 987/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 M/s. Gujarat Infrapipes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 2 heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. 2

GUJARAT INFRAPIPES PVT. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) relating to the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were ITA Nos. 813 & 987/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 M/s. Gujarat Infrapipes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 2 heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. 2

APEX HEALTH CARE LIMITED,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BHARUCH PRESENT JURIDICTION THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

TDS Net Amount Amount Amino 5 methyl Thaizol 1 01-07-2014 JW-01/14-15 474 150 71100 1422 69678 5 01-09-2014 JW-05/14-15. 1652 150 247800 4956 242844 11 24-01-2015 JW-12/14-15 2700 450 1215000 24300 1190700 13 31-01-2015 JW-13/14-15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (3) The ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (3) The ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (3) The ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (3) The ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (3) The ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (3) The ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (3) The ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (3) The ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

150/- (g) Land Restoration expenses Rs.1,07,375/- (2) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasons for making wrong claim in the returned income in terms of Clause (B) to Explanation 1 of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (3) The ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld

CREST SPECIALITY RESINS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHEDA, GUJARAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD (NOW DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the years under consideration

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

150 taxmann.com 528 (Ahmedabad – Trib.), while dealing with the similar issue, the ITAT Ahmedabad had made the following observations in this regard: “7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. On going through the records of the case, we observe that in the instant facts, the Assessing Officer had made detailed inquiries into the claim